Sad to say, the powers that be who sit on the correlation committee have decided that December is the perfect time to talk not about Jesus or Saint Lucy or even Joseph Smith (don't give them any ideas) but about the Proclamation on the Family. So, being obedient to all things correlated, that's what we'll do.

Yes, LaVerna? You wonder why the church used to issue Manifestos and now is issuing Proclamations? Well, you are right that a proclamation is simply an official public statement or declaration, while a manifesto is "a public declaration of principles or intentions, especially of a political nature," so it does seem like the content of the Proclamation would justify using the term "Manifesto." But perhaps that term has fallen out of favor since Karl Marx co-opted it. Or maybe it had something to do with the content of the last Manifesto the church issued, which wasn't well received by our brothers and sisters in northeastern Arizona. Still, I think it has a nice ring to it. But we digress--

The first line of the Family Manifesto reads "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . . ." Now, where else has the church given us language about the marriage covenant?

LaVerle? In the temple? Bingo! Whoops--excuse me for using a gambling term in church. What's that? You say that we pledge to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally and lawfully wed? That's right. But in the Family Manifesto it says "the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." So in the temple it says nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman only, but in the Family Manifesto it uses that language not once but twice. Why do you think the Family Manifesto doesn't use the same language as is used in the temple? Yes, Shamberlee? Because the Brethren wanted to make sure that people understand marriage, and thus, sex, can only be between a man and a woman? But don't most traditionalists believe that marriage, by definition, is only between a man and a woman, so adding the words "between a man and a woman" is either redundant or it admits that marriage can be between other than just a man and a woman, right? So maybe the Brethren are subtly acknowledging that marriage, by definition, does not exclude gays, so they had to add the exclusionary phrase "between a man and a woman." Like Arsenio Hall used to say, this is one of those things that makes you go "Hmmmmmmm."

The second paragraph of the Family Manifesto says that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Now, gender generally refers to a grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs. The Brethren probably meant to say "sex" but for whatever reasons prefer euphemisms to bluntness in talking about sex. What's that, Ardell? What about hermaphrodites? Yes, I am familiar with the term. It describes people who possess either ambiguous or both male and female sexual organs, but I think the term hermaphrodite is considered pejorative now, the more acceptable term being "intersexual." Indeed, if gender is determined by looking at the sex chromosomes, then there are far more than two genders. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual. If gender is eternal as suggested by the Family Manifesto, then does that mean that there are spiritual intersexuals in heaven? And if marriage is limited to just between a man and woman (and exaltation or eternal marriage is also so limited), what is God's plan for his children who do not have simple XX or XY sex chromosomes? Hmmmm.

The Family Manifesto continues "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife." More euphemisms. In plain English, the first thing God told Adam and Eve to do was to have sex and reproduce, a commandment that Adam and his posterity have enthusiastically been willing to follow ever since.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Is this a new revelation? Does it apply to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who performed an illegal marriage in Illinois and who had sexual relations with women to whom he could not possibly have been "lawfully wedded?" And what of all those plural marriages in Utah that were entered in violation of the Edmunds-Tucker Act? Does the Family Manifesto make Joseph, Brigham, and the Presidents of the church up to and including Heber Grant adulterers? Or is the "lawfully wedded" rule applicable only prospectively after 1995 when the Family Manifesto was issued?

Nordel? Yes, you are right that the Family Manifesto on this point follows quite closely a article on marriage that was approved by the church in a council on ate Month="8" Day="17" Year="1835">August 17, 1835ate> and was included in the Doctrine & Covenants until 1876. That statement said that "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." See http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/p/1835_article_marriage.phtml. Anyone have any ideas about why Brigham Young wanted this section excised from the Doctrine & Covenants? LaVerna? Yes, the section was written by Oliver Cowdery and not Joseph Smith, but so was section 134, voted on by the church at the same time, and that section remains in the D&C. LaVerle? Because the church in 1876 was openly practicing polygamy and the anti-polygamy language made the leaders look foolish? Hmmm. Could be, but wasn't polygamy part of church practice even in 1835? Nordel? Yes, that's right, it was practiced only by Joseph Smith in secret and maybe a few others in the Kirtland period, so as a general rule polygamy was not being practiced by the saints when the article on marriage was added to the D&C. But didn't Joseph Smith know that what the article on marriage said was false? And yet he approved of its inclusion in the D&C, allowed it to be published and preached for years, even as the practice of polygamy expanded. Does this reveal anything about Joseph Smith's character? In the interest of time, let's just leave that one as a rhetorical question, OK?

Next up, a few sentences from the Family Manifesto that have caused no end of confusion and debate. Perhaps the Brethren could take a cue from Nephi and begin speaking with "much plainness" rather than hiding behind obfuscation and ambiguity. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Shamberlee? Yes, I agree there is enough wiggle room here for people to either feel justified in their position regarding these issues or to feel guilty for not meeting some ideal that they read into these words. How much should we make of the fact that it says "fathers . . . are responsible to provide the necessities of life" but mothers are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Does this mean men are supposed to help in only a secondary manner in the nurture of their children but are solely responsible for providing the necessities of life (an apparent euphemism for "working outside the home"). Or does it mean that although women are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children, they can feel justified in taking on additional responsibilities (e.g., working outside the home). And if fathers and mothers are to help each other as "equal partners" what is the point of saying the father "presides" in the home? Since when is a president equal to the people he presides over? What rights and responsibilities does the president/father have that his "equal" wife does not? Choosing the person to say the family prayer? Or is it more than that? LaVerle? Yes, I agree that when these sentences are read together, they really don't say anything at all, especially when you include the "individual adaptation due to circumstances language--to whom would this not apply? And if the individual adaptation language applies to everyone, then there really isn't any general rule at all--it is swallowed by the exception. There so much ambiguity here as to render this whole paragraph meaningless.

Does the fact that the Family Manifesto doesn't come right out and say mothers shouldn't work outside the home the beginning of a slow retreat by the Brethren on the issue? Ardell? Yes, I would agree that the church takes in a ton of money from the tithing of working women and that fact might lead to a softening of the calls for mother to stay out of the workplace Perhaps the Brethren also anticipated the study by the American Psychological Association that shows that working mothers are generally quite happy and two-income families better off in a number of important ways, putting the lie to the "one-size-fits-all" Ozzie & Harriet lifestyle encouraged by the church's leaders long after the 1950s were only a fading memory. See http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/work.html.

Well, there is so much more we could discuss about the Manifesto on the Family but we are all out of time. Clarvid, could you offer the benediction? What? Oh, uh, yes, that's what people in other churches call the Closing Prayer. Thanks, and remember you only have 10 Mormon Shopping days until Smithmas (Sundays, of course, don't count when counting Mormon Shopping days).